CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 Berkeley Lake Road
Berkeley Lake, GA 30096-3016

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Meeting November 1, 2005
Full Minutes

Call to Order: Chairman Bob Herb called the meeting to order at 7:35pm on November 1, 2005 at 4040 S. Berkeley Lake Road.

Present:  Commissioners Skip Johnson, Rodney Hammond and Craig Belt.  Chairman Bob Herb. Jackie Wall (P and Z Clerk)  
 
Guests Present: Laraine and Bill Downey, Eric Zusmanis, Jack and Virginia Andreu, and Claude Murphy.

Old Business:
Minutes: Commissioner Hammond motioned to approve the minutes as amended for the October 4th, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion. The motion passed.

New Business
120 Ridge Road (Lot 1, BA-BL): Variance to construct a free standing carport at a distance of 4 ft from the side property line versus the required 12 ½ ft side set back. (39-804.6)

Zusmanis described where he would like to put the car port. He said he would like to amend the variance request so that the distance requested for the set back would be less, and he would back fill some gravel to level out the area.

Chairman Herb read the following:
39-1401 Variances - Application for, Procedure and Notification
a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography, and
b. The application of the Ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship, and
c. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and
d. Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner, and
e. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public nor impair the purposes or intent of this Ordinance, and
f. The variance is granted for a use of land or building or structure that is not prohibited by this Ordinance.

There was discussion regarding whether the Variance could be reduced further to 2.5 ft versus 8 ft as originally requested, therefore 10 ft rather than 12.5 ft. It was noted that there is a permanent 15-25 ft buffer zone to the right of the property line. Zusmanis also said his objective was to make it as unobtrusive as possible. It was noted that the structure would be almost out of sight, (even from the road), not attached to house in any way, a free-standing structure with no power, and that was why it would have to have the same setbacks as other buildings.

Commissioner Belt motioned to approve the variance with the change of distance to 10 ft from the property line setback on the side, for a 2.5 ft variance from the required minimum. Commissioner Hammond seconded the motion and all were in favor. The amended variance passed.

106 Ridge Road (Lot 5, BA- BL): Variance to alter a non-conforming structure (39-602.1); the existing non-conformance of the house is due to it set back at the front at 58’ versus the required 65 ft from the road edge and the rear of the house is located at a distance of 33’ from the rear lot line versus the required 40’ set back. Variance request is to add a den and deck that further encroaches on the rear set back to a distance of 21 ½’ from the rear lot line (39-804.5) and a variance request to add a front entry that further encroaches on the front set back to a distance of 49’ from the road edge.

Chairman Herb said that the property was already non-conforming both at the front and rear and he reiterated the measurements.  

Bill Downey described why they decided to move to their new house. He said the house had been empty for 2 yrs. He described their proposed changes, and he said they wanted to make a rustic cottage style home in keeping with homes already on Ridge Road. He said that the shape of the lot was strange He said that the lot had a large area (almost 60 ft) on the on left side (facing the home) but they did not want to change the current location of the home, and not add to that side as it would be expensive and cause trees to have to be removed. He said that their proposed changes would be to add to the existing porch on the rear only add 300-400 sq ft to the home.

Chairman Herb again described the following.
39-1401 Variances - Application for, Procedure and Notification
a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography, and
b. The application of the Ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship, and
c. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and
d. Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner, and
e. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public nor impair the purposes or intent of this Ordinance, and
f. The variance is granted for a use of land or building or structure that is not prohibited by this Ordinance.

Chairman Herb said that the lot is very shallow and the home should have been located in a better position in the first place, the unusual shape and topography would make this application relevant. Normally applications are not making non conformity any worse than it is. He said that the Downeys were however asking it to make it more non-conforming than it already is.

There was discussion regarding the shape of the lot, and the variance request for the front variance. It was noted that the addition of a porch would not be impactful, especially as the shape of the road and curve made it a difficult property shape.

Commissioner Hammond motioned to approve the front variance request for a 49’ variance setback, Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. It was noted that the opposite ends of property are very close to the set back and they would take the curve in the road into account.  Commissioners Hammond and Johnson were in favor of the motion. Commissioner Belt abstained. Chairman Herb therefore was required to vote, and he voted in favor of the motion. The variance request was approved.

There was further discussion regarding the variance on the rear. The request for the den on the left side (when facing the rear) was basically in compliance. The deck would not have a roof structure on it and sit approximately two feet off the ground to be equal with the existing foundation.

Downey suggested the deck be rounded off on the corner to make it less non-conforming and to allow for better access from the side of the house anyway.  

There was further discussion about the measurements on the rear setbacks of the house and particularly regarding the extension to the screened in porch to the right facing the rear.

Commissioner Johnson motioned to approve adding den on the left side (facing the back), and adding the deck to right of existing area, however omitting the extension to the current screened in porch. Commissioner Hammond seconded the motion. Therefore the setback would be 43 ft on the den (left side facing the back) and 21.6 setback on the deck.

Herb clarified that no other application could be made for the same area for another year. He also said that the approval would be for the footprint and the Downeys could decide to change the use of the area ie the den could be a porch, so long as they stayed in the approved footprint.  The existing sunroom could not be extended towards the right (facing the back) but there could be decking there.

Commissioners Hammond and Johnson approved the motion, Commissioner Belt abstained. Chairman Herb therefore was required to vote, and he voted in favor of the motion. The variance request as amended was approved.

Chairman Herb said that citizens or the Downeys’ could appeal the decision within the next 15 days.

Old Business
39-805 Floor Space Requirements
Chairman Herb said that city attorney had recommended a change in wording from ‘property’ to ‘lot.’
Commissioner Johnson motioned to change the wording as suggested to the following:
 
39-805 Floor Space Requirements R-100 Single Family Residence District
All single family residences shall contain not less than 2,000 square feet of floor space exclusive of unfinished basements, carports, attic and open porches / decks. The footprint of all structures however shall not occupy more than 15% of the lot upon which they are located when any structure has a building height that exceeds 25 ft at the highest point when measured at the front or has a building height that exceeds 35 ft at the highest point     when measured at the rear, if the structure is located on a downward sloping lot. The footprint of all structures however may occupy up to 20% of the lot upon which they are located when all the structures on the lot have a building height that is 25 ft or less at the highest point when measured at the front and has a building height that is 35 ft or less at the highest point when measured at the rear, if the structure is located on a downward sloping lot.

Commissioner Hammond seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.

39-401.2 Boat house and docks.
The Commissioners discussed editing the wording for this ordinance and recommended the following:    
    
39- 401.2 Boat Houses and docks:
-shall not extend more than 25 feet into the lake from the natural shoreline, and
-shall be at least 12 ½ feet from the side lot line, projected into the lake, and
-be at least 75 feet from the opposite shore, and
-shall not exceed 14 feet in height from the mean water level, and
-shall not  have a total footprint that exceeds 875 square feet, and
-shall not have a total roof footprint that exceeds 675 square feet. and
-shall not have an area enclosed on 2 or more sides with any material including, but not limited to, screening and glass greater than 100 square feet.

Commissioner Hammond motioned to approve the new wording. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion and all in favor. The motion passed.

Chairman Herb asked the clerk to forward the wording to the city attorney for comment.

There were questions from Phil Gilbert regarding his variance request to be heard at the next meeting. He was referred to 39-602, which Chairman Herb read to him and explained.

39-602    Continuance of a Building Occupied by a Non-Conforming Use
A building occupied by a non-conforming use at the time of enactment of amendment of this Ordinance may be retained except that it shall not be:
1. Enlarged or rebuilt except in conformance with this Ordinance, but it may be repaired to the extent necessary to maintain it in a safe and sanitary condition.
2. Rebuilt, altered or repaired after damage exceeding 40% for principal structures, and 25% for accessory buildings, of their replacement cost at the time of destruction, except in conformity with this Ordinance.

Gilbert was therefore advised just to do repairs (using different materials was permissible), and therefore no variance would be required.

The Commissioners agreed to meet again on Tuesday December 4th, 2005.

There was a motion to adjourn at 9:05pm by Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Hammond seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed